Uphold the particularity while maintaining a connection with the infinite behind the particularity is what I heard Jordan Peterson say. This sentiment harkens back to a passage in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Character: a presence without means, counsel he cannot impart, a Familiarity or Genius, which provides company for him, and doesn’t need society but can entertain himself very well alone. Alone in the herd but not lonely. The kernal of Solitude. I’m paraphrasing. The essence here between both accounts are similar. Individuality embodied while also connected to higher sources of Being. Staying connected while executing free will. Are there any other sources of this in literature, journalism, poetry, music, art…? What say you, friend.

xhightension wrote:Uphold the particularity while maintaining a connection with the infinite behind the particularity is what I heard Jordan Peterson say. This sentiment harkens back to a passage in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Character: a presence without means, counsel he cannot impart, a Familiarity or Genius, which provides company for him, and doesn’t need society but can entertain himself very well alone. Alone in the herd but not lonely. The kernal of Solitude. I’m paraphrasing. The essence here between both accounts are similar. Individuality embodied while also connected to higher sources of Being. Staying connected while executing free will. Are there any other sources of this in literature, journalism, poetry, music, art…? What say you, friend.

If I understand you correctly, I write on these things and I'd say the Bible is a good place to start, religion, mythologies and life-integral philosophies like Buddhism which is spirituality but a philosophy.

You may find what I and others write about on these forums interesting as well, my threads, subconscious, Abrahamic religions and dmt/psychedelics.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

xhightension wrote:Uphold the particularity while maintaining a connection with the infinite behind the particularity is what I heard Jordan Peterson say. This sentiment harkens back to a passage in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Character: a presence without means, counsel he cannot impart, a Familiarity or Genius, which provides company for him, and doesn’t need society but can entertain himself very well alone. Alone in the herd but not lonely. The kernal of Solitude. I’m paraphrasing. The essence here between both accounts are similar. Individuality embodied while also connected to higher sources of Being. Staying connected while executing free will. Are there any other sources of this in literature, journalism, poetry, music, art…? What say you, friend.

The idea of a Being is illusory and due to psychology, i.e. a very desperate existential psychology. This is highlighted by Kant in the following;

Kant in CPR wrote:There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which

we conclude from something which we know tosomething else of which we have no Concept,

and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [God, Being, and the likes] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

B397

The idea of a higher source of Being is very seductive, but it is merely an illusion driven by an existential psychology within, where even the wisest of men will be duped.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

xhightension wrote:Uphold the particularity while maintaining a connection with the infinite behind the particularity is what I heard Jordan Peterson say. This sentiment harkens back to a passage in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Character: a presence without means, counsel he cannot impart, a Familiarity or Genius, which provides company for him, and doesn’t need society but can entertain himself very well alone. Alone in the herd but not lonely. The kernal of Solitude. I’m paraphrasing. The essence here between both accounts are similar. Individuality embodied while also connected to higher sources of Being. Staying connected while executing free will. Are there any other sources of this in literature, journalism, poetry, music, art…? What say you, friend.

The idea of a Being is illusory and due to psychology, i.e. a very desperate existential psychology. This is highlighted by Kant in the following;

Kant in CPR wrote:There will therefore be Syllogisms which contain no Empirical premisses, and by means of which

we conclude from something which we know tosomething else of which we have no Concept,

and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

These conclusions are, then, rather to be called pseudo-Rational 2 than Rational, although in view of their Origin they may well lay claim to the latter title, since they are not fictitious and have not arisen fortuitously, but have sprung from the very Nature of Reason.

They [God, Being, and the likes] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself. Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him.

B397

The idea of a higher source of Being is very seductive, but it is merely an illusion driven by an existential psychology within, where even the wisest of men will be duped.

It is not an illusion, it is the misunderstanding of the context and language of which they were in and used that creates the image of it being an illusion, "god" and "mythology" are merely art and unique expression of what is through and of unique human psyche, of course with some exaggerations, this is why it is art and why art is important to our conscious choice of evolving.

I believe kant is referring to reality as being the illusion based off of reason, due to this fact of us misunderstanding context and language based on past environment due to being in "current" environment, which is long changed and more evolved in understanding, especially with self.

Self is the "god" of which people worship in an external method due to a literal/objectivity only style of thinking or perception, imbalanced ego. They worship externally not even realizing it is internal, thus creating the issues of which we are currently in, breeding passivity and willful ignorance to avoid self responsibility and becoming this "god" collectively, it's spawned out of and due to entrapment of the mind in fear and insecurities of unknown possibilities, through understanding of self and it's functions with reality, one can conquer fear and insecurities. What is and what can/could be.

Even nothing, is something.If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

I agree and I didn't. I did the opposite. Pointing out how the same line of argument in the solipsist can lead to problems. We all make assumptions about what exists, regarding things we do not experience directly. Or what it is hard to prove we experience directly or at all. And it's damn good we do this. Deciding when and in relation to what is the trick.

The problem of other minds is still a problem, despite your throwing a link to an article. To hold that solipsism is the case is one thing. To hold that it is an issue to know there are other minds is another. IOW taking the stance that everything is my mind, is not the same as saying that when we assume or conclude there are other minds, we are doing something that we perhaps think is wrong epistemologically when applied to other issues - such as a deity.

Perhaps you can avoid such formulations as....

It is not smart to claim...

I know you think Kant and you have resolved all the major philosohpical issues, but even if you are right about that, a little humility will open more doors to your TOE.